Author 



Class 


Imprint 



Book 


16-27179-1 


GPO 















i ifil 4! k, 




& ft ik maglm w®$ 

J V. S *JW’SWKi t ®cV.' £■ •• -i.<V 
&Ti '.'."rtM ' •fu^-T »fr <>•/' ..-t>'.•✓>* *? U 

w** 

< 


Mil fflk&lA 


.0$ 


r m $p |i fsfe 

»iw 


. j 4 ; 4 >-‘ -■■■<•• WiKft'F ''j 

WMlIill 




[■ *.,»:' KfiflgmiV. ’-'I.-; ‘/(i ’■>' ‘ 'v .,. >•&?'•'’' 

■ 

p; s.. - *n * i"-. .r J7:hi‘ , ■ ■* n * r. •» t*. *• *,/ ♦V.»V. « K . c' , .'# /. 

<(v • w^'SS#/ rMi'' 4 1 # 0 V w, . 43 

■S 1 •} • 1 2’- i*.jS'f , .',(*5i ? ii t •.• a - • ■>*. tf.v w >••-„■*■• ,(-• 

. 

:. i : ; r : »<&4-t .ifxi i 


« r '-';■ •* 5 ’ -■ $' .r *4' 

Mi 




•V,\ •«; Jt< .-■ • 

' . .I 

' 0k : '■'■■' ’" *:• :• ■' 


••')',■ 1 till U •! ' it 

j'/’^itJvjv v!i *#i: *;■•;• 


f-% aM-- -• f. *JvA'frfe?Jv ' f,' ->:j :•: 

' 1 . : k i T- ■•••' ^4: |’M • 
■^'l.'I'!:'/v- ■,; ; -J 

if. r/ -si, Er >1',^ 


. 

■ '‘ 4 ’/ 5 ‘ 


i 

f ■ - : ?f: 4 ': Jii' 1 1 . $ ( - 

' 


^^8 


;-.'/. vs-;& ': ■?..:///.... 

4 A /^V 

, ; 'i 'v'# 








r/ • y 


js.i --C , /•!■• ,:- a 

(i ■ •:>•■*’ «. . . ■ r •; 1 a 

• ': ; '■: \ • .*• -j '■ , ff -JJ 




*. *y»v, *,• . i*{* '•*, 

SB. ’Mtfe . 4 i 

04li,'yil, V. ■ «'• /f.. 


1‘ 1 


.\A( 































































































R 4NIZATI0N OF THE 

Go tent Departments 

Plan for Grouping Engi¬ 
nes to Effect Economies 
i ^er to the Chief of 

E ' the U. S. Army 




* 


AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ENGINES 

63 EAST ADAMS STREET, CHICAGO 
AUGUST, 1921 







Chicago. ' dois, 

ast 20, 1921. 


As the result of a strong moveme ;onomy in the cost of 


operating the Government, Congress has by : j resolutions created a 
committee to investigate and recommend reorganization of the adminis¬ 
trative branch of the Government ent of the United States 

is personally represented on this - rm ! ; • by Mr. Walter F. Brown 
of Toledo, Ohio. The committee been c king quietly and persistently 

since early last May and will probably make a report in September. 

The following paper is oftV-.-ed vi; the view of its usefulness in 
considering the problem of reorgarG: ilk■/:. The question is one meriting 
the careful attention of ever: ho is interested in reducing taxa¬ 
tion. When the question n up by Congress this fall, there will be 

lively discussions and an . d interest on the part of the public. 

The matter of reor an * the administrative branch of the Govern¬ 
ment is necessarily a tecbna v problem, but it is further complicated by 
selfish interests which a < \ to * ntinue the old order. 


In this paper are present d some constructive suggestions which 
deserve close study by those who will be concerned in working out the 
problem. 

This pape vch ha* been prepared by some of our members will 

serve as an ar : < o he circular recently issued by the Chief of Engineers 

of the Unite s Anny to his officers, giving his reasons for opposing 

the reorga T of he engineering activities of the Government. In 

order to av< ; t) e a understanding which may result from statements 

in the cue ,u . l i- felt that the arguments of the Chief of Engineers 
should 


/ 


AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS 


OCT 8 m 






T HE Corps of Engineers of the Army realizes that were it once to 
lose its river and harbor and other civil works, it would never 
regain them. In the past, from time to time, it has lost works 
originally assigned to it. The Coast Survey, The National Parks, the 
Survey West of the 100th Meridian, the more important part of our 
lighthouse construction, etc. It is noteworthy that such civil work once 
taken away from the Corps of Engineers of the Army is never returned 
to it. This shows that Congress and the people are better satisfied with 
the results obtained by the other organizations to which such works have 
been transferred. 

The Corps of Engineers of the Army, therefore, is making a desperate 
attempt to hold the civil works which it still has,—it realizes that the 
loss of these works would leave it with nothing to do other than its regular 
Army duties, and fears that its personnel would ultimately be reduced 
both in numbers and in rank until it balanced properly with the other 
branches of the Army. This outcome would be logical .and natural. It 
would noticeably reduce the cost of the Army and would in itself more 
than compensate for the supervision of the works by another agency. 

It is natural, of course, that those at the head of the Army engineers 
should make every attempt to prevent the loss of these civil works, and 
that they should lose sight of the resultant benefits to the country as a 
whole. Their arguments are inevitably one-sided. It is impossible for 
people with so strong a personal interest to present arguments which 
are free from prejudice and which are judicial in character. This “state 
of mind” is evident in the memorandum regarding the proposed Depart¬ 
ment of Public Works issued by the Chief of Engineers of the Army on 
May 3, 1921. 

Comment on this memorandum will first be given and thereafter 
a showing will be made of certain features connected with the control 
of civil works by the Army engineers which are decidedly disadvantageous 
to these works and to the country, and finally, the essential features 
which the organization of a Department of Public Works should have 
will be described and explained. Many of the objections of the Chief 
of Engineers to formerly proposed legislation on this subject do not 
apply to the plan now presented. 

Public Works Not Incidental to Primary Functions 
of Other Departments 

In his memorandum, the Chief of Engineers states that “although 
practically every department and almost every bureau of the Govern¬ 
ment has at times engineering activities or does construction work, yet 
these works are invariably incident to the primary functions of these 
various agencies.” 

Issue is taken with this statement. The primary function of the 
Army, for example, is its efficiency as a fighting machine. The improve¬ 
ment of rivers and harbors, the survey of the Great Lakes, the erection 
and management of public buildings in the District of Columbia, have 
no more relation to this primary function than have the paving of streets 
or the building of bridges in our large cities. 

Where there is any engineering, on construction essential to the 
military or naval functions of the Army or Navy, the proposed plan 

3 




herewith does not contemplate any change. The building of barracks 
and quarters, the erection of fortifications—all construction work clearly 
pertaining to the Army—is to be left with the Army. The construction 
and operation of dry docks and machine shops—even the building of bar¬ 
racks and quarters for naval forces, are to be left with the Navy. In 
no case does the proposed plan take away from these services any con¬ 
struction which fulfills any primary function in our National defense. 

But the great bulk of our public works, other than those pertain¬ 
ing to National defense, rarely bear a close relationship with the depart¬ 
ments under which they are at present. What relationship, for example, 
has the design, construction and management of our thousands of public 
buildings with the primary function of the Treasury Department? 

In the many cases where portions of our public works are managed 
by departments whose primary functions unmistakably lie along dif¬ 
ferent lines, these works are severely handicapped. They are “step 
children” and their interests are largely neglected. In such cases there 
cannot be the efficient and economical management of these- works which 
is so essential for stopping the waste of public funds. The multiplicity 
of services, bureaus, commissions, etc., in each of our Government depart¬ 
ments so scatters the energies of the departmental heads, as to increase 
their work and diminish their efficiency in an almost geometrical ratio. 

Specialists for Special Work 

The Chief of Engineers tries to emphasize the divergence of the 
various specialties into which the modern profession of engineering has 
developed, with the effort to show that work along the line of one engineer¬ 
ing specialty should not be performed by an engineer who is a specialist 
in a different line. Preferably each engineering activity should be per¬ 
formed by engineers who are specialists in that activity, but that all 
all the more emphasizes the importance of not having engineering activi¬ 
ties controlled by people who are not engineers at all. 

The Chief of Staff of the Army, the Director of Operations of the 
Navy are not engineers, and do not assume to be. Neither are the higher 
officials of the Treasury Department; and yet as matters now stand 
these officials have a controlling influence over the various public works 
in their respective departments, and in the conduct of these works regula¬ 
tions have to be complied with, and methods followed which are primarily 
adapted to activities of a totally different character. 

While an architect would not be likely to be the best man who could 
be selected for the management of a large survey, he would unquestionably 
be better fitted for such work than some military commander .or than 
some Collector of Internal Revenue; and even if such an architect had 
been specializing on the construction of monumental buildings, he would 
undoubtedly be better able to undertake the wholesale construction of 
inexpensive dwelling houses, than would officials who had no technical 
knowledge of architecture. 

While the modern profession of engineering has, like every other 
profession, developed along a number of specialized lines, all these lines 
have a common groundwork, bear a noticeable relation to each other 
and have many points of contact. There are many specialties in law and 
medicine. Certain attorneys, for example, have specialized in real estate 
law. While such a man might not be the best who could be selected to 

4 


try a criminal case before a jury, is there anyone who would prefer to select 
a physician for that purpose instead? Would not the ordinary general 
medical practitioner be better fitted to perform a surgical operation 
than the best lawyer at the bar? 

Now if all the engineering activities of the Government, which are 
not directly incidental to the primary functions of the Government 
departments in which their management now lies, w r ere consolidated into 
a single Department of Public Works, such a department would neces¬ 
sarily contain engineers, each of whom would be an expert along some 
special line. All the various engineering lines would be represented among 
these specialists. In doing this the Government would be doing no more 
than following a fundamental policy of universal application in the busi¬ 
ness world. The executive of such an organization of engineers could 
always select a man therein who would be specially suited for any work 
which might be at hand. Action would be direct and immediate. There 
would be no delay and lost motion, such as now often results when 
selection is governed by departmental reasons superior to the economic 
interest of the work itself. 

In addition to interchangeability of personnel, there would result a 
corresponding interchangeability of plant and equipment. This would 
result in great economies as compared with the present situation in which 
each of the many existing organizations endeavors to keep itself fully 
equipped at all times, regardless of the amount of equipment which may 
be in the hands of other Government organizations. 

The Chief of Engineers takes the stand that the department which 
uses any building or other structure is for that reason the best fitted to 
supervise its construction. As well say that every man who wears clothes 
should be his own tailor. Every man who buys a suit will make selection 
in accordance with his financial ability, his needs and his taste, but if he 
is wise, he will leave the cutting, fitting and sewing of the garments to a 
man who knows that particular business. 

It would be inconceivable, in the construction of a public building, 
that the department which was to use that building should not be fully 
consulted as to its essential requirements, but the resultant building 
would be a better structure and would cost less money if constructed 
by an agency experienced in construction work and not unduly influenced 
by other considerations. 

In this connection, it should be noted that practically all of our cities 
have their departments of public works, and that many of our states 
have also organized similar departments when their construction work 
has grown to any considerable volume. How much more necessary, 
therefore, is such a department for the National Government whose 
annual expenditure for engineering purposes has now become so great 
an amount. By adopting this policy the Government will be following 
the example already set by the government of every large country in 
the world. 

Co-operation Alone Insufficient 

Why should the charting and mapping work of the country remain 
scattered among so many different organizations—the charting of our 
sea coast by the Department of Commerce, of our lake coast by the 
War Department, the collection of charts of foreign coasts and additional 
surveys thereof by the Navy Department, the staking out of our public 


lands by one organization in the Interior Department, and the general 
mapping of the interior of the country by another in the same department. 
Such multiplicity of organizations for kindred purposes unavoidably 
causes duplication and requires a much larger number of employees and 
much more equipment than if all this work were consolidated in one 
organization with two divisions, one for the land work and one for the 
water work. The equipment required would be somewhat different, but 
the personnel could be used interchangeably, as the judgment of the 
head of the organization might direct, and without the delays which 
would inevitably result from a series of interdepartmental conferences 
every time some measure of co-operation seemed desirable. 

The Chief of Engineers feels that a full degree of co-operation is all 
that is necessary to accomplish economical results in this direction. Such 
co-operation, however, has been tried many times and has generally 
failed. Some fourteen or fifteen officials, each representing a different 
governmental survey agency, were convened as a Board of Surveys and 
Maps by order of the President on December 30, 1919, under instructions 
to adopt a workable plan of co-operation. The member who represented 
the Corps of Engineers, an Army engineer officer, was selected as the 
chairman of the board’s committee on “co-ordination.” Twice since 
then has this officer presented reports for the consideration and action 
of the board, and on both occasions the reports were referred back to 
to this officer’s committee because they did not accomplish the obvious 
purpose of co-ordination of mapping activities. As a result, no practical 
system of co-operation has been found, and the matter remains in the 
same chaotic state as it was before. 

It is the same with nearly all of our Government engineering activities; 
a consolidated organization would perform the essential work better 
than is now possible, would reduce personnel and equipment, and would 
save to the Government many millions of dollars annually in a way in 
which no mere co-operation can accomplish. 

Laws Affecting Navigable Waters Not Technical 

Another point made by the Chief of Engineers concerns the enforce¬ 
ment of the various laws affecting navigable waters, which he regards 
as highly technical in character. The extreme technicality of these laws 
is not clear from an engineering standpoint. They are of a kind for the 
enforcement of which the qualities of vigilance, common sense, and 
attention to business are the prime requisites. Occasionally some technical 
knowledge such as the law of flow of water, etc. is necessary; but all 
such problems require engineering knowledge in their solution, and have 
no relationship whatever to military affairs. The Corps of Engineers 
has been handling these matters for years, and the noteworthy lack of 
any standards of dimensions for bridge clearances, as well as for the length 
and breadth of locks, does not indicate such attention and foresighted¬ 
ness on the part of that Corps as to justify its claim to superior fitness 
in this respect. Such variations as are frequently noted in the policies 
applied to these measures seem to result from the frequent changes in 
the personnel which handles them, and these changes seem to have 
become an essential feature of Army policy. 

6 


Schooling of Army Engineers on Civil Work No Real Help 
To Engineer Organization in France 

The Chief of Engineers dwells very strongly on the importance to 
the Army resulting from the schooling which Army engineers obtain in 
the management of the various civil works which have been entrusted 
to them. He makes the point that without such schooling there would 
have been much greater delay, expense and loss of life in France than 
was actually the case there with our forces. He by no means proves this 
statement, and there are many reasons which bring its accuracy into 
question. 

There are many regular Army engineers whose work in France is 
entitled to the highest praise. Some, of course, never should have been 
sent there. The same statements are true with regard to the great many 
civilian engineers who entered the Army temporarily during the war. 
The Chief of Engineer’s point, however, concerns the effect on the military 
engineering organization in France of the schooling which some of the 
regular army engineers had previously had with our civil works. 

Now in all fairness to the individuals concerned, there is much which 
indicates that the regular engineering organization, so far as that organi¬ 
zation functioned in this matter, was as often an obstacle to the work 
in France as it was an aid in its execution. Much of the success achieved 
by many of the regular army engineers who were in France was due 
much more to their ability to get favorable action at headquarters where 
they knew the ropes and could obtain a hearing, than to any previous 
schooling which these men had had with civil works. 

The engineering work of our Army overseas was enormous. If 
the engineer organization of the Regular Army had fully profited by 
its previous experiences with civil works, it is unquestionable that all 
of our engineering activities in France would have been actively managed, 
under the Commanding General, by the Chief Engineer on his staff. 
But, on the contrary, this engineering work soon became more or less 
detached. Much of it was in effect taken out from under the charge of 
the Chief Engineer and placed under separate management—often with 
a temporary officer at its head—a civilian engineer, who was with the Army 
solely because of the war. In the general case those officers, regular and 
temporary, who were the most successful in engineering work in France, 
were those who in one way or another had succeeded in getting their 
work practically out from under the Chief Engineer, and who were able 
to manage it, under the Commanding General, without interference on 
the part of the Chief Engineer, or of the Regular Army engineering 
establishment in the United States. 

The railroad service, the chemical warfare service, the purchasing- 
department, the construction and operation of the ports, the construction 
of many of the cantonments, hospitals, etc. all illustrate this. They had 
to be gotten away from the red tape and endless restrictions and delays 
of the regular Army engineering organization in order that results might 
be obtained. While individuals among both the regular officers and the 
temporary officers were entitled to credit for much of the success obtained, 
it is by no means clear that the Corps of Engineers as an organization 
is so entitled. 

The wide acquaintance of the officers of the Corps of Engineers 
with the engineering profession generally was not nearly so much in 

7 


evidence as the much narrower acquaintance among such enigneers which 
was had by the few Army engineers who happened to be in power in 
Washington at the moment; and the many unfortunate changes of engineers 
in France, whose assignments did not accord with their special qualifi¬ 
cations, and which changes were more noticeable with the engineers than 
with any other branch of the service, were the result of the narrower 
acquaintance and personal prejudices of the small number of Army 
engineers who alone had the decision in such matters in the early days 
after our entry into the war. 

Much of this would have been inevitable in any case; but the point 
is that the Corps of Engineers as an organization by no means has the 
right to claim any major part of the credit for such engineering successes 
as were achieved in France, and cannot properly use such an argument 
in favor of its retention of civil works which are in no way incident to 
the primary functions of the Army. 

Objections to Control of Civil Works by Army Engineers 

On the other hand, there are many objections to the continued control 
of civil works by the Army engineers, which far outweigh all of the argu¬ 
ments of the Chief of Engineers if the many engineering act vities of the 
Government are to be so conducted as to get a dollar’s worth of result 
for every dollar expended. 

Such civil works as are still performed by the Army engineers were 
assigned to them at a time when these officers were the only engineers 
in the employ of the Government. That this assignment has been undis¬ 
turbed for over a century in no way proves that it ought to continue. 
Since that early time the modern profession of engineering has become 
established, and has increased and is still increasing in membership and 
usefulness in a manner without precedent. Our first technical schools 
were not started until about the middle of the Nineteenth Century, and 
the American Society of Civil Engineers—our parent engineering society 
—was not founded until 1852 

A number of engineering organizations have been established from 
time to time in the various Governmental departments, and the officers 
of the Corps of Engineers are no longer the onty engineers in Govern¬ 
ment employ. In fact, they have become a decided minority, as the 
Government today pays for the services of more civil engineers than 
any other employer in the country. 

The officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Army have usually 
been men of high personal character, and their administration has generally 
been free from graft and from dishonest or partisan motives. These are 
valuable qualities which the members of every organization should have. 
The Corps of Engineers of the Army, however, has no monopoly in this 
respect. Without in any way detracting from the personal character 
of its officers, it is manifest that their standing as officers of the Army r 
and their immunity from discharge except after due trial by a court martial 
composed of their seniors, have had much to do in the past with their 
ability to make reports to Congress which were unaffected by dishonest, 
or partisan motives. 

General Staff of Army in Control 

In recent years, however, a change has become apparent. The 
Corps of Engineers, formerly practically independent in its administr a 

8 


lion of the civil work in its charge, has come under the control of the 
General Staff of the Army. This General Staff is mainly composed of 
officers from other branches of the service and concerns itself solely with 
the efficient management of the Army as a fighting machine, not at all 
with the efficient management of the civil work which still remains under 
the Corps of Engineers. The control over the Corps of Engineers which 
the General Staff now exercises, while presumably necessary for army 
purposes, has very greatly destroyed much of the former efficiency of 
the Corps of Engineers in administering its civil work. 

Frequent Changes of Station 

An excellent illustration of this lies in the frequent changes of station 
of engineer officers in recent years. It is obvious that every change in 
the adminstrative head of an engineering district is necessarily followed 
by a period of uncertainty and vacillation on the part of the new adminis¬ 
trator,—lasting until such time as he can pick up all the threads, familiar¬ 
ize himself with the personnel under him, and with the market conditions 
and resources of the district. During such period there is much unavoid¬ 
able lessening of efficiency, much vexatious delay and much loss of money 
which could otherwise have been used for more desirable purposes. 

Changes of such officials, of course, have to be made at times, but 
in recent years it has been the rule, as a result of General Staff control, 
to confine an officer’s stay on a station to a maximum of four years. This 
has really meant an average of less than three years. As a matter of 
fact, there are few officers who are not moved once, and some who are 
moved twice or more, by each successive Chief of Engineers during his 
usually short tenure of office. 

It is difficult for an officer of the General Staff to understand that 
these frequent changes mean in the aggregate a large waste of money 
to the United States. Such an officer feels that a Colonel of Infantry, 
for example, will be able to perform the duty of commanding a regiment 
as efficiently in Alaska or the Phillipines as in the United States. Where- 
ever such an officer is sent, the duties of commanding a regiment remain 
much the same; and it is hard for a General Staff officer to appreciate 
that this is by no means the case with an engineer officer who is in charge 
of civil work. 

On this civil work there is not only much variety, but much of it 
is of such specialized character as to require years of study and experience 
if really efficient management is to be had. The design and construction 
of harbors, open channel improvement of rivers, design and construction 
of locks and dams, survey and charting of navigable waters, the erection 
of large public buildings—all of these things are engineering specialties. 

No man, however able, can newly take charge of such matters with¬ 
out making many mistakes, causing many delays, and wasting much 
money, however, honestly he may have spent it,—and yet with the 
present management of the Corps of Engineers of the Army, new men 
are being given just such assignments at least every three years on all 
of the work in charge of that Corps, and there can be no change in this 
respect so long as control remains with the General Staff. 

Responsibility Cannot Be Fixed 

In addition these frequent changes of Army engineers make it unlikely 
that one of them who had prepared plans and estimates for a work of 

9 


any magnitude will remain in the district long enough to perform its 
actual construction. This latter would be done by one or more of his 
successors. If these successors should exceed the original man’s cost 
estimate, they would declare that that estimate was too low, and that 
they had had nothing to do with the making of it. The original man 
might be certain that the estimate was sufficiently large and that its 
being exceeded was due to faulty engineering or faulty business manage¬ 
ment. Neither side to such a controversy, however, could prove his 
case, so responsibility could not be fixed and the Government would have 
to pay the cost. The engineer who makes an unduly low estimate or who 
causes the work to be unduly delayed or to exceed in cost what was a 
proper estimate, should be brought to book in some way, and such facts 
should be held against him on his record. The frequency with which 
Army engineers are changed, however, renders this practically impossible. 

Engineers, as such, have no right to question the military necessity 
which may exist for these frequent changes of station. That they are 
disastrous for the efficient and economical conduct of the civil works, 
however, is undoubted. The sole remedy for this difficulty lies in taking 
these civil works away from the Army engineers, and placing them under 
civilian control where military reasons of a compelling character can no 
longer adversely affect them. 

Army at Large Favors Change 

The Army itself, outside of its Corps of Engineers, will in the main 
approve of such action, and will feel that the strictly military engineer¬ 
ing work thereafter remaining with this Corps will be the better attended 
to with resultant benefit to the Army as a whole. Col. Roger D. Black, 
formerly of the Corps of Engineers and of the General Staff, while per¬ 
sonally disagreeing with the conclusion, admitted in a discussion before 
the American Society of Civil Engineers that: 

“It is believed that there is a not inconsiderable opinion in the General 
Staff to the effect that the river and harbor work is detrimental to the 
interests of the Army, that the Corps of Engineers should be relieved 
from this work and devote its entire time to ‘soldiering’.” 

France, Italy and Germany are essentially military nations. The 
people of each of these countries realize that the efficiency of the Army 
is the prime essential Government function. No chances are taken; 
and yet in none of these countries—not even in England which is not 
so essentially a military nation—does the engineer organization of the 
army have charge of the country’s civil works. If there were any real 
increase of efficiency in such civil engineering schooling for its army 
engineers as would result in improving the country’s military strength, 
such countries as these would never have overlooked such an opportunity. 
The conclusion is unavoidable that the “military” argument for the 
retention of our civil works by our army engineers proceeds more from 
intrenched tradition and long established custom than from the true 
interest of our National defense. 

School Training Alone Does Not Make Engineers 

There is another reason, however, why these civil works should be 
taken away from the army engineers. These latter are originally appointed 
to their positions either from the United States Military Academy at 

10 


West Point, or are chosen by examination from recent graduates of our 
various technical schools. The training at West Point brings forth 
many valuable qualities of great importance not only in the army but in 
all other walks of life. In purely educational matters, however, the 
strongest emphasis there is placed upon mathematics. So far as the studies 
go, West Point is essentially a mathematical school. The mathematical 
faculty is very important for a soldier and essential for an engineer, but 
in itself alone it will not suffice for either. While an engineer must have 
this faculty, there are many other necessary qualifications. 

In the broader sense of the term, an engineer, like a lawyer or physi¬ 
cian, or any other professional man, must be born as well as made. The 
officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Army are for the most part 
selected from those who have made the best records in the course of 
study at West Point. As a result, our Army engineers are, as a class, 
gifted to a greater or less degree with the mathematical faculty. They 
are by no means all of them engineers in the full sense of that term. In 
fact, it is doubtful if more than a third of them are really engineers in the 
sense in which that expression is understood by the profession generally. 

To a degree the same statement holds good for the graduate of our 
engineering schools. They have the ground work—as a rule a better 
technical ground work for the purpose than can be given at West Point— 
but they have yet to demonstrate their industry, ability and capacity 
along engineering lines and to make good in the profession. 

No school, however excellent, can in itself make an engineer in the 
full sense of the term. It can at best give but little more than the technical 
ground work. West Point hardly does that, as its course of studies does 
not attempt to do more than outline the field of civil engineering. For 
army engineers there is an additional post graduate course of about 
two years at the Engineer School at Camp Humphreys, Va., but such 
practical instruction as is given there is more military than civil. 

In addition to the ground work provided by the schools, a man to 
become a real engineer must actually practice the profession, must per¬ 
sonally make designs, must personally take charge of construction, and 
must demonstrate by his work, conducted over a period of years, that 
he can obtain the efficient and economical results which alone can prove 
his right to be a professional engineer in the true sense. 

By no means do all graduates of technical schools pursue engineering 
practice. Many in civil life become deflected to other activities and drop 
out of the profession in one way or another. With the Corps of Engineers 
of the Army, however, the great majority of its younger officers remain 
and are given large engineering responsibilities regardless of the results 
which they accomplish. The result is much of a character with what we 
would expect if the selection of all of our federal judges was based solely 
upon their records as undergraduates of a few of the law schools of the 
country. 

General Atterbury’s Testimony. 

No man is better qualified to give an opinion in this respect than is 
Gen. W. W. Atterbury, operating Vice President, Pennsylvania Railroad 
Co. In addition to his wide engineering experience with that organiza¬ 
tion, he was, during the recent war, in charge of transportation with the 
American Expeditionary Force in France, and from that work derived an 

11 



unusual opportunity to form an opinion regarding the Corps of Engineers 
and its work. 

Speaking before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs on August 
27, 1919, relative to Army reorganization, Gen. Atterbury stated: 

“Now, the Corps of Engineers. From the standpoint of the Army it 
is a mistake to take ‘the cream off the jar of milk’ and put them in the 
Engineer Corps. Then you send them off to a school, after which the 
engineers are put out on civil work. The result is that you have produced 
neither engineers nor soldiers. That is perhaps a little exaggerated, but 
I say that they are not engineers because when out on general work their 
work is done by civilians. The work ordinarily done by the Corps of 
Engineers under the Treasury Department, buildings and river and harbor 
work, should be done by a civilian organization under a civilian depart¬ 
ment. The military engineering work, should be, of course, under the 
Corps of Engineers. I do not believe you ought to take the best men in 
the class, the men who stand highest in the class, for that purpose. The 
best engineer is not always the highest standing man in the class.” 


Civilian Assistants Powerless To Prevent Mistakes. 

Many of the younger officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Army 
are kept so much on duty with troops or on other strictly military work 
that when they first take administrative charge of a district which is 
doing purely civil work, they have had so little personal practical experi¬ 
ence along civil engineering lines that delays and expensive mistakes are 
unavoidable. 

The civilian engineers who are attached to the Army in such districts 
cannot control the situation. They are subordinate to the new and often 
inexperienced Army officer who arrives to take charge of the work. This 
latter may be fresh from military duties, and, like many Army officers, he 
may be strongly imbued with the idea that a subordinate has no right to 
make suggestions even remotely indicating a lack of belief in his chief’s 
infallibility. By snubs and otherwise, he may discourage suggestions, and 
the civilian engineer can do nothing but remain silent. His continuance 
in office, his bread and butter, largely depend upon the whim of the officer. 
He has no right to go to anyone else in the matter. To go over the officer’s 
head would be insubordination. “Steering the boss” is a dangerous game 
at best. Civilian engineers have to be very careful in such matters. The 
efficiency of an established and well organized district can easily be de- 
stroj^ed in a short time by a few such assignments. 

The effect of the present system has become so far reaching that 
civilian engineers as a class have schooled themselves into suppressing 
their real views if they believe them to be in any way contrary to the ideas 
of a new officer. As a result, an Army engineer, to obtain their real views 
must first cultivate the most friendly and intimate personal relations with 
them. Unfortunately few Army engineers will do this for fear of being 
accused of lack of “discipline”. 

There is no escape from situations of this character unless all civil 
work now under the Army engineers is taken over by an organization com¬ 
posed of men who have proved themselves to be competent professional 
engineers by long years of successful practice. As matters now are, the 
civilian engineers are essential to the successful management by an Army 

12 


engineer of the work of a district, but on the other hand, they are power¬ 
less to prevent its mismanagement by him if he displays any reluctance 
to listening to them. 

Personal Records Of Army Engineers Silent 
As To Their Engineering Efficiency 

There is a side light on matters of this character which should not be 
overlooked. The Army, under the supervision of the General Staff, 
keeps personal records of all its officers. In the case of officers of the 
Corps of Engineers these records of the General Staff are usually expres¬ 
sions of opinion on the part of senior officers, and rarely contain any state¬ 
ments of fact. Strange as it may seem, in the case of no engineer officer 
does this record contain any information whatever as to the results which 
he has been obtaining along engineering lines, nor does it show whether 
his work has been economically performed or not. Such matters appear 
to be devoid of interest for the Army authorities. 

The result of this is that an Army engineer who has charge of civil 
work need concern himself with little but the paper work and the social 
activities of the locality. So long as he can so conduct the work itself 
as to keep official complaints from being made, he gets by with a good 
record, regardless of whether his work has been unduly delayed or has 
cost much or little. An agreeable social connection, and a competent 
clerical force to look out for the 1 " Mty of difficulties with the papers— 
those, and not the engineering re*. ,, seem to be what is chiefly desired. 

Clerks The Masters And Not The Servants 

And this very fact underlies and causes most of the mass of compli¬ 
cated paper work which has grown in recent years to an unprecedented 
magnitude. The district officers, changing as frequently as they do, lean 
heavily upon their clerks. These clerks find they can conduct their 
offices best by satisfying the clerks in Washington. The latter, practi¬ 
cally being fixtures at headquarters there, finding that they can have 
pretty much their own way in such matters, and being in touch with the 
clerks in other branches of the Army, keep adding clerical requirements, 
and boosting the game. The paper work has finally become so compli¬ 
cated that it requires specialists to handle it. Men who become such 
specialists find that it is then easier to hold their jobs. They stick on and 
keep adding to the requirements to such extent that additional clerks have 
to be employed not only in Washington but by all the district offices, and 
so the clerical game goes merrily on, with officers and civilian engineers 
doing their utmost to keep up with it, and with the real interests of the 
work in the field becoming more and more neglected. The knife is the 
only remedy for such a disease—cut it all out and start fresh. Put real 
civil engineers in charge of this civil engineering work and the clerks will 
become servants and not masters, and real economies will then become 
possible. 

Undue Influence Of Army Politics 

So long as an Army engineer’s personal record at Washington is silent 
as regards his engineering achievement, manifestly his work along such 
lines will not receive the attention from him which it would were his 
promotion and preferment based upon his success with it. He finds that 

13 


by satisfying the clerks, and maintaining an acceptable social standing, 
and especially by getting himself into the personal good graces of his 
immediate superiors, he can obtain the promotion and preferment which 
should be based solely upon his engineering accomplishments. 

By playing the game of army politics, also, he finds that even his 
engineering failures, if not too notorious, will be disregarded. Is it any 
wonder that real engineers among the officers are overlooked, become 
discouraged and in some cases quit in disgust? Where preferment depends 
upon army politics and not upon engineering efficiencj^, is it any cause for 
surprise that the works suffer, that delays are the rule and not the excep¬ 
tion, and that millions of dollars are wasted? 

Undemocratic Caste System 

Again, why, in a democratic form of government, should we have 
a class of employees who can be promoted so far and no further regardless 
of their conduct and efficiency? 

Such a class is formed by the civilian engineers employed under the 
army engineers. After years of experience and the accomplishment of 
excellent results, the best which one of these men can hope for is to become 
principal “assistant” engineer of a district with a salary ordinarily not 
exceeding $250 a month, with, in rare cases, a maximum slightly greater; 
and with the duty of guiding the newly arrived and often inexperienced 
district officer under whose orders he is placed—so that expensive mistakes 
may be kept at a minimum. 

Of course, such a man can quit and seek employment elsewhere. 
Many of these men do, and the Government has lost the services of 
many excellent engineers in just this way; but many also have given 
so much of their lives to the Government, have so made the Govern¬ 
ment’s interest their own, and the work has become so much a part of 
them, that they remain regardless of the feeling that they are held in a 
sort of lower “caste” from which under our laws there is no present way 
of promoting them. Is it necessary to say that a system savoring so essen¬ 
tially of “caste” is contrary to our basic American principles, and would 
not be countenanced by the people did they fully understand the stituation. 

But apart from that feature of the case, it is contrary to the essential 
principles of good business management to have a class of employees in 
an organization who are held as ineligible for promotion beyond a certain 
point, and who can never aspire to the highest positions. It should be 
possible for the humblest employee of an organization to attain its leader¬ 
ship if he makes good. 


Summary of Objections 

Concrete cases in proof of these assertions can be produced. They 
could be produced plentifully if officers on the active list and civilian 
employees dared to risk their positions and give their honest views freely. 

What can be clearly established can be summarized as follows: 

(a) Army engineers are not all engineers in the full professional mean¬ 
ing of the term. Probably not over a third of them possess the necessary 
qualifications. 

(b) The constant changing of station of Army engineers—such a 

14 


change occurring on the average in a period of less than three years— 
prevents these engineers from efficiently handling their work and leads 
to vexatious delays and to great waste of money. 

(c) Delays are the rule and not the exception. 

(d) The constant changing of station of Army engineers renders it 
unlikely that the same man who makes an estimate for a work of magni¬ 
tude will actually construct it. Responsibility for excess cost and waste, 
therefore, cannot be definitely fixed. 

(e) The civil engineering work of the Corps of Engineers is regarded 
by most of the rest of the Army as time and energy wasted, and experience 
and skill in this work, instead of helping in the advancement of an officer, 
becomes a bar to his promotion. 

(f) Promotions and assignments of Army engineers depend on 
army politics and not upon engineering efficiency. 

(g) No one in the War Department cares very much about the 
civil engineering work of the army engineers or takes any real vital 
interest in it. 

(h) No one in the War Department cares whether one of these 
civil works costs a million dollars or so more or less than it should. 

(i) The personal records of officers which are kept by the General 
Staff of the Army contain no information with respect to Army engineers 
which shows what they have or have not accomplished in the way of 
efficiency or economy. 

(j) There is a general exaltation of paper work. The clerks are the 
masters instead of being the servants. The papers in a case are held as 
being of greater importance than the case itself. 

(k) Civilian engineers who assist an Army engineer are essential for 
the successful performance of any work by him, but on the other hand 
are powerless to prevent faulty engineering or faulty business manage¬ 
ment on his part, should he not desire to listen to them. 

(l) There is a distinct, unAmerican and undemocratic caste system. 
A civil engineer employee of the Army engineers can be promoted so 
far and no farther. He becomes subordinate to officers much younger 
than himself and must try to save them from the results of their 
inexperience. 

(m) There is a general insufficiency of inspection of the work in the 
field; and headquarters at Washington is in very inadequate touch with 
conditions. Nobody seems to care so long as the papers are straight. 

All these defects would be remedied once proven engineers were 
placed in responsible charge of the Government’s civil engineering works, 
under a department whose sole reason for existence was the efficient 
and economical conduct of such works. These civil works would then 
cease to be side issues scattered among various departments whose chief 
concern lay in other directions. Clerical work and Army and other 
kind of Washington society politics would then cease from being controlling 
factors. Engineers would be judged upon their actual achievements in 
engineering lines, and would be promoted, and rewarded accordingly. 
There is no other answer than to put all the Government’s engineering 
work under real engineers and have it conducted by a Department of 
Public Works. 


15 


What a Department of Public Works Should 
and Should Not Include 

Such a department should not include engineering activities which 
are clearly incidental to the primary functions of the National defense. 

The construction of fortifications for the Army; the operation of 
dry docks and machine shops for the repair of our naval vessels; the 
obtaining of military information to be placed on maps for the use of the 
Army; the building of barracks and quarters and incidental municipal 
improvements connected therewith for our Army and Navy forces. Such 
things—being directly in line with the primary functions of the Depart¬ 
ment concerned, will receive the full thought and attention of those 
departments and can be safely left to them. 

But the general mapping of the country and its coasts; the improve¬ 
ment of its rivers and harbors, and their marking and lighting; the con¬ 
struction, repair and management of the thousands of Government 
buildings, many of which are available for the use of all Government 
departments; the building of roads and railways so far as the Govern¬ 
ment undertakes this work in a direct and permanent manner; the reclam¬ 
ation of our arid lands, and the leveeing and draining of our extensive 
swamps and overflowed areas; all of the Government’s activities, in 
short, which are not directly incidental to the National defense, and 
in which three-fourths or more of the expenditures involved are along 
lines which are included in the modern profession of engineering; these, 
for reasons of efficiency and economy, should be consolidated into one 
Government Department of Public Works. 

Greatest Opportunity for Immediate Government Economy 

Now, in any reorganization of the Government’s activities, the 
creation of such a department of Public Works offers the greatest imme¬ 
diate opportunity for a reduction in Governmental expenditure. 

The cost of our Army and Navy with their resultant pension list? 
■etc., of course, forms the major part of our annual expenditure, The 
people are already restless under the heavy taxation which such expendi¬ 
ture necessitates. Our main economies in the future unquestionably 
will lie in reducing, so far as may be possible, the costs of these establish¬ 
ments for our National defense. 

The necessity for safety and security is, however, of prime national 
importance. Our Army and Navy must be adequate for our defense. 
Any other course is in no sense an economy. Our wounded and disabled 
soldiers and sailors should be our first care, and should never be neglected. 
But the size and therefore the cost of our Army and Navy are chiefly 
dictated by considerations from without the country, which are by no 
means always under our own control. These establishments should be 
as small as is consistent with a certainty of safety and no smaller, and 
they should, of course, be kept at the highest degree of efficiency. 

Considerations solely connected with the interior development of 
the country, and with the increase of its commerce and prosperity, cannot, 
in themselves, be allowed to control Army and Navy policies; but such 
considerations should control most of our other governmental activities, 
and among these there are none in which so great savings in dollars and 
cents can be made as in those which concern the engineering profession. 

16 


Engineering has been well defined as the science of economy—economy 
usually measured in money, but occasionally, during war or other emer¬ 
gency, measured in time—but economy nevertheless. An organization 
to practice a profession whose motto is economy should be composed of 
men who had proved that they had themselves made economies and 
were therefore the more likely to continue making them. The Government 
is entitled to the best, and it can get the best, but selection should be made 
from those known to possess the desired qualities and not otherwise. 

Works Included 

The various engineering activities which it is desired to consolidate 
and place in this new department are the following: 

(A) All public buildings, structures and grounds except those required 
by the Government of the District of Columbia and those required solely 
by the Army and Navy for distinctly militarj^ or naval purposes. 

(B) All river and harbor and related works, including the Mississippi 
River Commission, the California Debris Commission, the Federal Power 
Commission, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the 
supervision of the Port of New York. 

(C) The Bureau of Lighthouses. 

(D) All public roads, railroads and bridges built and maintained by 
the Government except those required by the Government of the District 
of Columbia and those required solely by the Army or Navy for distinctly 
military or naval purposes, but including the Bureau of Roads of the 
Agricultural Department, the Alaska Road Commission and the Alaska 
Engineering Commission. 

(E) The Forest Service. 

(F) The National Park Service. 

(G) The Reclamation Service, including all irrigation, drainage and 
water supply and related works except those required by the Govern¬ 
ment of the District of Columbia and those required solely by the Army 
or Navy for distinctly military or naval purposes. 

(H) The Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

(I) The Survey of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes. 

(J) The Hydrographic Office of the Navy. 

(K) The Naval Observatory. 

(L) The Bureau of Standards. 

(M) The Bureau of Mines. 

(N) The Geological Survey. 

(O) The General Land Office. 

In all of these it will be noted that the main activity of each is along 
engineering and technical lines and that three-fourths or more of the 
expenditures are for surveys and construction where engineering skill 
is essential to economy. The usefulness of none of these various organiza¬ 
tions is by any means confined within the limits of the department to 
which it is now attached, but is very general and greatly concerns other 
departments and the general public as well. 

The design and erection of the thousands of buildings constructed 
by the Government should be handled by one organization. The ordinary 

17 


operation of these buildings should be looked after by the department 
which uses them. Where more than one department uses them, their 
operation and repair could be managed by the Department of Public 
Works. 

All of our governmental road and railroad activities should be united. 
The heaviest expenditures for the Forest Service and for the National 
Park Service are for the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges 
and buildings. 

The work of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and of the Survey of 
the Northern and Northwestern Lakes, and to a great degree that of the 
Hydrographic Office of the Navy is along identical lines. The survey 
work of the Geological Survey and of the General Land Office is closely 
related to the survey work of these other organizations. 

The Naval Observatory is essentially a research activity and is more 
closely allied to these various surveying activities than to anything else. 
The accurate determination of time, for general distribution to the rail¬ 
roads and the public, is essential in determining the astronomical positions 
of places throughout the country where accurate maps are to be made, 
and the Almanac or Ephemeris produced there is essential not alone for 
navigation, but for all important survey work. 

The Bureau of Standards is not only essential for all accurate sunn¬ 
ing work, but its duties and helpfulness would be greatly increased if 
its research and standardization work could be made automatically 
available for all the activities which it is proposed to concentrate in a 
Department of Public Works. The Bureau of Mines is closely related 
to the activities of the Geological Survey; and the Reclamation Service 
is essentially a general engineering activity throughout, with many points 
of contact with the other activities mentioned. 

One-Sixth of Total Government Expenditures Other Than 
For National Defense Involved 

The annual appropriation for these above named activities for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, was $107,830,024.07. The total appro¬ 
priation of the Government for that same period was $3,213,042,484.68. 
Of this latter $2,553,397,028.60 was for interest on the public debt and 
for Army, Navy, pension and allied military purposes, so that the strictly 
civil engineering activities of the Government formed about one-sixth 
of all of its appropriations other than those for interest on the public 
debt and for national defense. 

Here unquestionably is the main field for immediate Government 
economy; and the consolidation of these engineering organizations into 
one department and having them under the control and management 
of proved engineers will at once make for their increased efficiency, will 
reduce personnel and equipment and will stop waste. 

Classes of Work 

These various works naturally fall into four general classes: 

1st. Surveys and Research. 

2nd. Public Buildings and Grounds. 

3rd. Works of Reclamation, including irrigation, flood protection, 
drainage, etc. 


18 


4th. Works primarily concerned with transportation, including 
bridges, roads, railroads, canals, waterways and aids to navigation. 

The volume of work involved is very great. The activities named 
are all such as require technical knowledge and skill, and are included 
within the present profession of engineering. 


Constant Watchfulness Essential to Stop Waste 

Clearly all such activities should be in the charge of the same govern¬ 
ment department. Unless the large volume of work involved can be so 
consolidated, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to apply 
the principles and methods used by business organizations in order to 
promote efficiency. 

It is solely by such consolidation that that constant watchfulness 
will be possible which is so essential for the elimination of useless and 
undesirable activities and the proper co-ordination of useful ones. 

As the needs of the Government in such directions keep varying 
from time to time, such watchfulness is necessary to prevent duplications 
of work, and to keep forces and equipment at a minimum. In this way 
alone can there be provided that constant effort to “make a dollar go 
the farthest” which has been well stated to be the duty of the engineer. 


Possible Conversion of Existing Department 

It may well be that in any general reorganization of the Govern¬ 
ment’s executive activities, the work of some departments would be 
unduly diminished and the work of others would be unduly increased. 
It is possible, therefore, that the duties now proposed for a Department 
of Public Works could best be given to one of the existing departments 
whose duties would otherwise become too little; and the suggestion to 
put these public works into the Interior Department, possibly changing 
the name of the latter, would have the added advantage of rendering 
unnecessary an additional department and an additional cabinet member. 


Volume of Work Necessitates Separate Department 

In any event, however, these various engineering activities should be 
brought together, and the volume of work and expenditure involved is 
so great as to justify a separate department with a cabinet officer at its 
head whose primary function would be the efficient and economical 
management of these works and the elimination of waste. 


Secretary, Assistant Secretary And Law Officer 

At the head of such a department there should, therefore, be a Secre¬ 
tary who is a member of the Cabinet. There should be an Assistant 
Secretary and also a legal adviser or Counsellor, specially versed in the 
law of contracts, riparian laws and kindred subjects. These officials 
should all be specially appointed by the President in order that they may 
be certain to be in full harmony with him 

19 


Advisory Council 


For matters of general departmental policy it would be well to have 
an Advisory Council composed of prominent business and professional 
men, specially selected by the President, whose expenses should be pro¬ 
vided for, but who should serve without pay. The Secretary of the De¬ 
partment, its law officer, and the head of its permanent technical force 
should all be ex-officio members of such an Advisory Council. 

Control Of General Policies 

Through these officials and instrumentalities the President and the 
Department, and through them Congress, will be able to keep in touch 
with the best thought in the outside business and professional world, and 
will have that complete control of general policies which is essential to the 
carrying out of the will of the people. 

Permanent Technical Force 

There is a great amount of work involved in such a department, 
however, which is essentially technical in character, which therefore re¬ 
quires the services of experts, and which will be much the same regardless 
of such changes as may occur from time to time in matters of general 
policy. 

For work of this character there should be a permanent organization 
by which is meant one whose membership is not subject to sweeping 
changes, political or otherwise, and which will function with continuity, 
preserve essential traditions and develop an esprit de corps. 

For this permanent technical force there should manifestly be one 
chief executive or Director General. Under him there should be a Director 
in special executive charge of each of the main bureaus into which the 
work of the department would naturally be divided. This would require 
one Director General and four Directors. 

The work of each bureau, under its Director, will divide along special¬ 
ized lines. Each bureau will logically be composed of two, and sometimes 
more, divisions. Each such division should have its Chief. 

Two Methods Of Obtaining Suitable Men 

Now in the organization of the permanent technical force there are 
two general methods which may be applied. 

High Salaries 

One method, that usually applied by large business organizations, is 
one of large monetary compensation. Some corporations pay salaries 
to their engineering advisers as high as $50,000 or more a year. The in¬ 
terests of such corporations are definite and are unaffected by extraneous 
considerations. It pays them to get the best advice possible and they 
get it. 

The Government, however, cannot follow such a course. Congress 
will never consent to the payment to Government employees of the large 
salaries which are customary in the business world. Nor, if it did, would 

20 


there be any likelihood of the Government’s keeping such highly paid 
positions filled with the men of special ability who alone could earn such 
salaries. Too probable would be the eventual giving of such appoint¬ 
ments as rewards for past political services, too improbable would be the 
giving of such appointments to qualified specialists whose action in the 
interest of the Government might often have to be contrary to the immedi¬ 
ate popular or political desire. 

Low Salaries 

But the Government can obtain the services of properly qualified 
men without large monetary compensation in a way which is not ordinarily 
open to large business corporations. 

By such methods as pinning a medal or decoration on a man or other¬ 
wise increasing his dignity and standing as a reward for exceptionally 
heroic or distinguished service, the Government can often get more in the 
way of devotion to its interests than any amount of money could buy. 
This principle of increasing the dignity, hor.or and standing of individuals 
is universally applied in all organizations which have to do with War or 
other great emergency. 

Long Established Precedent 

And this principle, in essence, can be applied to a Department of 
Public Works in such manner as to secure the loyal services of competent 
men at salaries which Congress would consider reasonable. It is not a 
new departure, it follows a long established but not generally recognized 
precedent. It has been under trial for many years, and it has stood many 
tests. 

Quite by accident, and in no way by design, this principle was adopted 
for the management of such of the public works of the country as were 
given to the Army engineers in the old days, at a time when they were the 
only Government engineers available. 

While the work of the Army engineers has been open to many objec¬ 
tions and has often been accompanied by delays and wastefulness, it has 
been conducted with the minimum of graft and the minimum of petty 
political partisanship. And this has been not so much because of the men 
themselves, but because they were given a high standing, were suitably 
protected in their positions, and could not be peremptorily discharged 
without real cause. It is the principle involved in this matter which 
should be preserved. It has worked so well for so many years that it should 
not go unheeded, but should be retained and adapted to our new conditions. 

Such objections as have arisen to the Army engineers have never been 
by reason of this feature of their organization. On the contrary, it has 
been the recent weakening of the principle involved which has led to much 
of the criticism. 


Secure Tenure Of Office Necessary 

To apply this principle to the permament technical force of a Depart¬ 
ment of Public Works, it will be necessary that the members of this force 
should be given as secure a tenure of office as is given to officers of the 
Army and Navy. 


21 


They should be irremovable except for just cause, and then only after 
a trial by a court or board of officers senior to them in the service, and who 
would therefore be unlikely to be influenced by selfish motives. Such a 
trial should be conducted in accordance with the rules of law, and the 
accused should be given a full hearing. 

Rank Necessary 

In addition to a secure tenure of office the members of this permanent 
technical service should be given as much in the way of standing and 
dignity as will place them on an equality with officials in other services 
whose responsibilities are of approximately equal volume. 

This can be done by giving them appropriate rank—assimilated to 
corresponding grades in the Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Public Health 
Service. The titles used by them should be appropriate to their duties, 
but should be accompanied by appropriate rank, and their pay and allow¬ 
ances should correspond therewith. This course will lessen the possibility 
of these men being influenced by motives of an unworthy or partisan 
character and will render them as reliable for the disbursement of Govern¬ 
ment funds and for the safeguarding of Government property as are the 
present engineer officers of the Army. 

There can be no objection to rank when it results from individual 
attainment and is not hereditary. In the character of organization which 
is desired the positions carrying rank should be few and should be capable 
of attainment by any of the civilian employees who make good. These 
positions will then offer a real and worth-while goal as a reward for 
efficient service. 

Small Number of Officers 

The annual salaries in the aggregate of the officers of such an organi¬ 
zation should not exceed, and preferably should be less in amount than 
the aggregate annual salaries now paid to the men in executive charge 
of the various engineering activities which it is proposed to consolidate. 
There is no necessity nor excuse for any increase in overhead costs in 
an effort of this character which is primarily designed to effect economies. 

In giving to such officers a tenure of office as secure as is now given 
corresponding officers in the other services named, it will be necessary 
to provide for their retirement for physical and other disability, and for 
age, say at seventy. The heads of the various bureaus and divisions 
should be selected from among them by the President, but their promotion 
otherwise should be by seniority subject to an examination for fitness which 
should be conducted by a board of officers senior to them. Should one 
of these officers fail to demonstrate his fitness for promotion at such an 
examination, he should either be left in his previous position or retired 
from service at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department. 

The slight expense which may result to the Government from such 
retirements will be many times offset by the knowledge that considerate 
treatment of this kind will be given to the officers. It will make these 
positions all the more desirable of attainment by the civilian employees 
and will be a stronger incentive to these employees to perform work of 
the very best character. 

There should be but a very few officers and but a small percentage 
of them will be likely to be retired for any cause other than age. The 

22 


security of their positions will enable them fearlessly to give the Govern¬ 
ment their honest views regarding matters referred to them, unswayed 
by motives of a petty partisan nature. It will mean much to Congress 
to be able to obtain views of such character. 

These officers also will still have a strong incentive to perform their 
work with the maximum of efficiency because of the selection of the 
Chiefs, Directors, and Director General from among them. There will 
always be before each of them, the possibility of attaining these high 
positions if the work which they perform for the Government is of the 
right character. 

It is fully realized that objection in many quarters will arise to the 
plan of creating a small commissioned force and of giving that force the 
control of the technical work of the new department. Perhaps all the 
objections which now apply to existing organizations will be felt by 
many to apply to this new organization. There is a very essential dif¬ 
ference, however. The officers under this new plan would be so recruited 
that they will necessarily all be engineers. It is essential that they should 
be protected from petty political interference or the results may be dis¬ 
astrous, and the giving of commissioned rank to them and making them 
irremovable except for cause and after trial by their seniors is the only 
way by which they could certainly be given this protection. 

Subsequent Filling of Vacancies 

The method of recruiting of this small commissioned force, as vacan¬ 
cies occur, should be by selection by a board of officers from among the 
civilian employees of the Department. These employees will all be men 
who have passed the requisite entrance and promotion examinations 
required by the Civil Service Commission, and will all have a civil ser¬ 
vice status. 

By confining the selection of new officers to such of the civilian 
employees who have arrived at a reasonable age and who have worked for 
the Government for a reasonable period, it becomes not only possible, 
but inevitable, that the selection will be based on the work which such 
employees have performed and on the results which they have accomplished. 
The officers composing the board which makes the selection will neces¬ 
sarily be anxious to secure men who will be creditable to the organization 
and whose appointment will give it added strength. Selection will no 
longer be based solely upon school work or upon the passing of some 
special examination. 

With vacancies filled in this way, two of the chief defects of exist¬ 
ing organizations will be remedied. In the first place the men selected 
will be bound to be engineers in the full sense of the term, and in the 
second place there will be no longer any legal bar to the continued pro¬ 
motion of efficient engineers who are making good. 

Assignments of Officers Should Not Be Restricted By Law 

It will be noted that with exception of the heads of bureaus and divi¬ 
sions the proposed plan makes no distinction as to duties between the 
various officers. Any of such officers should be legally available for detail 
to any of the work of the department. It is undoubtedly true, and highly 
desirable, that individuals among them will display special qualifications 

23 


for certain kinds of work. As proposed, there is nothing to prevent such 
individuals from being given the class of work for which they have shown 
themselves best fitted. It would be possible, of course, that an officer 
whose capabilities were best along surveying lines could be given archi¬ 
tectural work—but this is not at all likely to happen, as it will manifestly 
be the desire of the executive officers in a department which deals solely 
with the public works, so to assign the officers as to secure the maximum 
of efficiency for the organization. 

There is a real benefit, however, in not confining these officers by 
legislation to certain kinds of work. The knowledge which each officer 
will have that he is eligible for other classes of work than that in which 
he may at the moment be engaged will necessarily broaden his vision, 
will give the organization a better esprit de corps, make it more flexible, 
and will weld it into a more harmonious unit than would any permanent 
separation of the officers among the various bureaus and divisions into 
which it may be convenient to divide the department. 

It will unquestionably be wise to leave all such matters to the higher 
officials of the department, as they can be depended upon to place the 
various officers where their work will be the most effective. Also this 
will do away with any incentive to the building up of one bureau or 
division at the expense of the others, and thereby perpetuating undesir¬ 
able activities. 

If for any reason, Congress should desire to slacken work along cer¬ 
tain lines and increase it along others, this feature of interchangeability 
among the officers will cause the organization to respond, and there will 
be no inducement to build up certain branches of the organization regard¬ 
less of the needs of the moment in other directions—efforts of which 
character could occasionally be quite annoying and embarrassing to 
Congress. 

Preliminary Organization of Department 

For the preliminary organization of such a department it would 
be advisable to take over the existing organizations concerned with as 
little as possible of immediate change in their personnel. The logical 
course would seem to be first the selection of the Secretary, Assistant 
Secretary, and Counsellor of the new department and then, from among 
the various organizations which were to be consolidated, to select the 
Director General, Directors and Chiefs of the permanent technical force. 

These men will know those who have previously been working 
under them, and will be able to advise which of these subordinates are 
the best fitted for preliminary selection for the limited number of officers 
of the new department. 

There will be no difficulty if this method of selection is followed 
except possibly with those organizations which are to be taken from the 
Army and Navy. Here the officers now in adminstrative charge will 
continue to be needed for their regular military and naval duties; but 
there will be no dearth of material from which to make selection, as the 
civilian employees of these organizations, the Army and Navy officers 
who have been retired therefrom and who are not yet too old, and the 
officers still actively serving with them and who would be willing to 
vacate their present commissions if appointed in the new department, 
would offer a wide field for judicious selection. 

24 


By the pursuit of such a policy in the original appointments for the 
new department, there would result the minimum of shock and" dis¬ 
turbance to the work in progress and the change could be effected without 
serious friction. 

It would then become the duty of the Director General and the 
Directors of the new organization to determine all details regarding the 
consolidation of offices, districts, works, etc., throughout the country, 
and make pertinent recommendations regarding such matters to the 
Secretary. In a short time by such methods, it would become possible 
properly to reduce the personnel and introduce the maximum of efficiency 
and economy in administration. 

Officers Immediately Available for Army Work in Time of War 

The Chief of Engineers of the Army is very insistent as to the neces¬ 
sity for Army engineers to become familiar with civil engineering by 
using our civil works as a school of instruction for them. It is believed 
Ihat the fortification and other engineering activities left with the Army, 
together with the command and management of engineer troops therein, 
will offer all of the engineering schooling needed by these regular officers, 
will increase their usefulness for the Army itself and will not entail so 
many delays and so much wastefulness as do the present methods. 

It is realized that modern war demands the services of nearly the 
entire engineering profession, and provision should therefore be made 
for the fullest use desired by the Army of the officers of this new depart¬ 
ment. They should be and can be as eligible for immediate detail with 
the Army in time of war or other emergency as are the present officers 
of Army engineers who are engaged on civil work. 

But they will, for the most part, be specialists in various engineer¬ 
ing lines, which is what Army engineers are not permitted to become; 
and, with their special talents, which, in each case, will be well known to 
the Government, they can be assigned by the Army to duties where 
these talents are needed, with as much, and probably with greater, suc¬ 
cess than was the case in France. 

Conclusion 

The plan outlined will create the new department with the minimum 
of shock or friction. It will preserve all essential principles and features 
of the older organizations. It will enable the new organization to adapt 
itself to the work which is to be undertaken, to put a stop to overlapping 
and lost motion, to bring about standardizations and quickly to reduce 
its personnel and equipment to that which is really required. It will 
free it from such regulations and requirements of other organizations 
as are not germane to its own work, and will create a corps of experts on 
which the country can depend for the efficient and economical solution 
of its engineering problems along the lines of such general policies as may 
be desired by the President and the people. 


25 
















































i 







• ;* . f' 5.,-1 ; fit:,*..-’ ,- 4 ••> */ ®5 >',;: .’/i 4 '.<< 5 ',/ >; i|r 

* ■ *&tM mMnmwwd 

;>:. - •;?..*>■<' v Wwmm I 

i. . . # . v r u. ■ r mi / <. -■ ■ N :»..*■ >/*'•,( J 7 * yi k 

'rf 1 ?.* s - , ■&%, 71 : 4 % ■ r* ft- ■«., • (Sb#! " • /JtFsv ■• ‘VS*, 


v ;..'r. - .ViV : ^; 5 U- 








irr ‘\fL- v, - *-v ViC '.•••• f.V- - . •• . ,/ , '.v.,, v .v - v. . •. 1 . ,:-.A - {>• -;r.- ;iv;.; 

■ 




W, 












4P<\ 


y. 

r'B*V ‘ ''^ ' V.'V. * , ,j ur 

.-. iV. {■' ■ i A >, A-V 3 

-iivl 

:-K 

iWi j 


iiVf' ^ 0 >; " ■■?• .vVV. 

^ 4 .; ,v.,-' : v;-v. .. ■:, ,OT|i k h :;!b.A - ; 


■ .-j 1 ■ ♦ • r ^ v •» • ■ j )■ . > /. -i .- . • > • ' 4 , •£ . 

% t§te : 

7^' ' >{',V *'' •'• » v*iy ft i- - • •'■ iK-’i • l 5 H,v- : *• ».!•!- * it -vf> 

« 


> 

S-* iP fl . ‘.'-'•"iV ' ' *i l4 / ,; '■; *£'V •' .■• >‘? r <4 -fe ■ * ''• b •-{''*■#>5*^.T*• ‘ ?' J< 

- 

. 

R. . .-._,.v V. » V 1 V . > > .-' ' • .>,t',. ' V • Jd l th. '; i • * ^ , A ■: 






’. IV \ y,- it - 4 < v '*».• m > v *-.*;• • \ vs iiW v V‘• 7 :*f * v aj /:■ ■< 'v' tV‘ • "7 >><**• A' 1i\ • ■* '"*1 •* ■?.< •v'.in, a.V 7/<!» 

[;V* W‘ •;- ; A-^ .; • V;'.: 3A : ' ■-, ^ :yf • v, : . V 


• » ••’. ”*V.< lfii, ‘ ■ 

r.tki 'h -i 3 • ' . e . i ■. ft 1 ’■fS.'S'lbir ^'•. ..4*-n- M ^ i: a * • , • A t,': . a. ‘<- »•. 4«! -/UL .i■. 


-■:■'■■» - v'v‘i 




W ySi‘ : ■ V Wf vj,'. 






4 < 




. ," ■•* " ; 1 : .;•' yi.;.: $ 

V ...:* V^iiw V,?' 

• tt 'f, '“;rv,-.» I 'M . $£2'J 3 '.>w y, 

'6,uJ +.!/*->.&'**■* . Ih’r.'f/li? \ f «! <.'. 

;• v•<..,,v.--» • ,lv ii^-A ... ^ 















































































































